Hon’ble Chief Justice,
This is an open letter from an Indian Citizen to your lordship on the recent comment on Indian Trade Unions’. I write this with the deepest respect for the office you hold and the institution you lead. The Supreme Court of India has long been the constitutional conscience-keeper of the Republic, particularly for those who have little voice, little wealth, and little bargaining power.
It is precisely for that reason that many working people and trade unionists across India were pained by the sweeping character of certain remarks attributed to your Lordship in open court and thereafter widely amplified in the media.
As reported, your Lordship is quoted as having asked:
“How many industrial units… have been closed thanks to trade unions?” and suggested that “traditional industries” were shut “because of these… unions,” further implying that union intervention prioritises agitation over work.
Why this matters beyond the courtroom
A judge’s words, especially the Chief Justice’s, travel far beyond the case file. Even outside formal rulings, your words carry an authority that few institutions can match. A single generalised comment quickly hardens into “truth” for the public. Without the nuance that labor realities demand, such remarks reshape attitudes in boardrooms and policy debates long before a counter-argument can reach them.
The Constitution guarantees the right to form unions under Article 19(1)(c) for a specific purpose, not as a decoration. It empowers individually weak workers to bargain collectively. Through this democratic design, workers secure the dignity, fair wages, and safety they cannot achieve alone.
Our statutory framework flows from this constitutional core. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 exists to provide for registration of trade unions and to define the law relating to registered unions, recognising collective organisation as lawful and necessary. More recently, the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 consolidates and regulates trade union registration, recognition of negotiating unions/councils, and collective bargaining structures.
Against this background, a broad statement that unions are “largely responsible” for closures risks sounding, however unintentionally, like a moral indictment of a constitutionally protected institution.
India’s international commitments also recognise organising as central to dignity at work
India is a founding member of the ILO and has ratified many labour conventions. But, India has not yet ratified ILO Conventions No. 87 and 98. Consequently, the burden of protecting collective bargaining falls squarely on our domestic courts. When international law is silent, judicial language becomes the sole guardian of the Indian worker’s right to organize.
A respectful disagreement: closures are rarely caused by “unionism” alone
Hon’ble Chief Justice, industrial closures in India have historically had many drivers, technological change, policy shifts, global competition, credit cycles, mismanagement, asset-stripping, governance failures, delayed modernisation, and at times regulatory uncertainty. In some situations, industrial relations breakdowns contribute too. But attributing closures broadly to unions risks collapsing a multi-causal economic story into a single convenient scapegoat.
Even where unions are militant, the question is not whether unions should exist, but whether lawful collective bargaining and effective dispute-resolution mechanisms are strong enough to prevent conflicts from becoming destructive. Our labour statutes were enacted precisely to promote industrial peace through negotiated settlements and adjudication.
Judicial Precedents: Positive Constitutional Role of Trade Unions
Historically, trade unions have driven India’s labor jurisprudence and anchored constitutional protections for workers. Landmark Supreme Court decisions prove that unions do more than agitate; they expose exploitation and champion the cases that lead to transformative rulings on dignity and equality.
IIn the Asiad Workers Case (1982), the Supreme Court revolutionized labor rights. The Court ruled that Article 21 guarantees dignity and livelihood, while Article 23 classifies sub-minimum wages as “forced labor.” Crucially, it allowed even the most vulnerable workers to approach the Court directly under Article 32. Can we ignore this legacy of worker advocacy when assessing the role of unions today?
In SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001), the Court tackled the exploitation of contract labor. The judgment affirmed that when unions fight for regular jobs and fair treatment, they are not “disrupting” the industry, but are seeking constitutional justice. Does this history of protecting the vulnerable support the narrative that unions cause industrial decline?
Further, in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Kamgar Union (1999), the Supreme Court adjudicated a dispute involving union representation and procedural fairness, highlighting the importance of collective representation in industrial contexts. The Court’s engagement in such matters reflects that unions serve not as obstacles, but as vital protectors of workers’ rights and fair processes within industrial democracy. Can such judicial recognition of unions be dismissed as mere agitation or counter-productivity?
Together, these judgments prove that trade unions build industry; they do not spoil it. By enforcing constitutional rights, unions turn fundamental freedoms into reality. History shows that lawful collective action does not weaken industrial peace—it secures it through social justice.
Hon’ble Chief Justice, this rich constitutional legacy forbids us from letting sweeping generalizations reshape public perception. Because the Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence affirms the indispensable role of trade unions, your recent remarks require urgent clarification to protect the dignity of India’s workers.
Banking Sector: A Contemporary Parallel
The United Forum of Bank Unions (UFBU), engaged in sustained dialogue and negotiations with IBA, Ministry of Finance, and the Department of Financial Services for years on legitimate issues affecting bank officers and employees, illustrates the constructive role unions continue to play in the modern era.
Despite repeated negotiations, clarifications, representations, and even proposed strike actions (including the recent five-day banking industry strike called after long patience), there has been no conflict with public interest or service delivery. Union leadership has consistently balanced public service with lawful democratic assertion of employee rights.
To portray such union actions simplistically as agitation without reason can create public misunderstanding about:
- the seriousness of worker grievances,
- the constitutional legitimacy of collective action, and
- the delicate balancing of public service needs with labour justice.
A humble request: clarify, contextualise, and restore balance
I request that Your Lordship take a public-corrective step to balance the record. Either clarify that your comments were not a wholesale rejection of trade unions, or reaffirm that lawful unionism is a constitutionally protected necessity. Taking this step would strengthen public confidence and prove that the highest level of our judiciary deeply understands labor’s vital role.
I write as a citizen who believes that the rule of law exists to protect the vulnerable and to balance power, particularly where inequality of bargaining power is stark. The Constitution does not ask workers to be silent; it gives them a lawful democratic instrument: association.
With profound respect, I urge a rebalancing of the public record. We cannot allow the nation to view trade unions as a problem to be blamed. Instead, we must recognize them as a constitutional force that civilizes labor relations and guarantees dignity at work.
